About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Middle Inlet, Wisconsin, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 21,360, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 162,915. This indicates that the top earners earn 8 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 282,509, which is 173.41% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 1322.61% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2022 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Middle Inlet town median household income. You can refer the same here

The Pew Research Center defines the middle class as households that earn between two-thirds and double the median U.S. household income, which was $65,000 in 2021, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Using this measure, middle income is made up of households making between $43,350 and $130,000 annually.This map isolates 7 income brackets within the middle class income range, and maps the relative predominance of each income range across the country for census tracts, counties, and states. The brackets defined in the map, drawn from ACS Household Income Distribution data, are as follows:Households whose income in the past 12 months was $125,000 to $149,999Households whose income in the past 12 months was $100,000 to $124,999Households whose income in the past 12 months was $75,000 to $99,999Households whose income in the past 12 months was $60,000 to $74,999Households whose income in the past 12 months was $50,000 to $59,999Households whose income in the past 12 months was $45,000 to $49,999Households whose income in the past 12 months was $40,000 to $44,999Click on each feature reveals more detailed information in the pop-up regarding the current predominant income bracket and compares these figures to historical data. Information included in the pop-up:The total number of homes falling into the predominant Middle Class income bracketThe total number of homes compared to the 2010 - 2014 ACS Household Income Distribution Variables.The percent change in homes within the predominant income bracket between the current ACS, and 2010 - 2014 ACS and whether or not this change is considered statistically significant.This map uses the most current release of data from the American Community Survey (ACS) about household income ranges and cutoffs. Web Map originally owned by Summers Cleary

Abstract

Dataset used in World Bank Policy Research Working Paper #2876, published in World Bank Economic Review, No. 1, 2005, pp. 21-44.

The effects of globalization on income distribution in rich and poor countries are a matter of controversy. While international trade theory in its most abstract formulation implies that increased trade and foreign investment should make income distribution more equal in poor countries and less equal in rich countries, finding these effects has proved elusive. The author presents another attempt to discern the effects of globalization by using data from household budget surveys and looking at the impact of openness and foreign direct investment on relative income shares of low and high deciles. The author finds some evidence that at very low average income levels, it is the rich who benefit from openness. As income levels rise to those of countries such as Chile, Colombia, or Czech Republic, for example, the situation changes, and it is the relative income of the poor and the middle class that rises compared with the rich. It seems that openness makes income distribution worse before making it better-or differently in that the effect of openness on a country's income distribution depends on the country's initial income level.

Kind of data

Aggregate data [agg]

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents the mean household income for each of the five quintiles in Sands Point, NY, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The dataset highlights the variation in mean household income across quintiles, offering valuable insights into income distribution and inequality.

Key observations

• Income disparities: The mean income of the lowest quintile (20% of households with the lowest income) is 62,342, while the mean income for the highest quintile (20% of households with the highest income) is 1,206,232. This indicates that the top earners earn 19 times compared to the lowest earners.
• *Top 5%: * The mean household income for the wealthiest population (top 5%) is 1,779,703, which is 147.54% higher compared to the highest quintile, and 2854.74% higher compared to the lowest quintile.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Lowest Quintile
• Second Quintile
• Third Quintile
• Fourth Quintile
• Highest Quintile
• Top 5 Percent

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: This column showcases the income levels (As mentioned above).
• Mean Household Income: Mean household income, in 2023 inflation-adjusted dollars for the specific income level.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Sands Point median household income. You can refer the same here

This dataset contains replication files for "The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940" by Raj Chetty, David Grusky, Maximilian Hell, Nathaniel Hendren, Robert Manduca, and Jimmy Narang. For more information, see https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/the-fading-american-dream/. A summary of the related publication follows. One of the defining features of the “American Dream” is the ideal that children have a higher standard of living than their parents. We assess whether the U.S. is living up to this ideal by estimating rates of “absolute income mobility” – the fraction of children who earn more than their parents – since 1940. We measure absolute mobility by comparing children’s household incomes at age 30 (adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index) with their parents’ household incomes at age 30. We find that rates of absolute mobility have fallen from approximately 90% for children born in 1940 to 50% for children born in the 1980s. Absolute income mobility has fallen across the entire income distribution, with the largest declines for families in the middle class. These findings are unaffected by using alternative price indices to adjust for inflation, accounting for taxes and transfers, measuring income at later ages, and adjusting for changes in household size. Absolute mobility fell in all 50 states, although the rate of decline varied, with the largest declines concentrated in states in the industrial Midwest, such as Michigan and Illinois. The decline in absolute mobility is especially steep – from 95% for children born in 1940 to 41% for children born in 1984 – when we compare the sons’ earnings to their fathers’ earnings. Why have rates of upward income mobility fallen so sharply over the past half-century? There have been two important trends that have affected the incomes of children born in the 1980s relative to those born in the 1940s and 1950s: lower Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rates and greater inequality in the distribution of growth. We find that most of the decline in absolute mobility is driven by the more unequal distribution of economic growth rather than the slowdown in aggregate growth rates. When we simulate an economy that restores GDP growth to the levels experienced in the 1940s and 1950s but distributes that growth across income groups as it is distributed today, absolute mobility only increases to 62%. In contrast, maintaining GDP at its current level but distributing it more broadly across income groups – at it was distributed for children born in the 1940s – would increase absolute mobility to 80%, thereby reversing more than two-thirds of the decline in absolute mobility. These findings show that higher growth rates alone are insufficient to restore absolute mobility to the levels experienced in mid-century America. Under the current distribution of GDP, we would need real GDP growth rates above 6% per year to return to rates of absolute mobility in the 1940s. Intuitively, because a large fraction of GDP goes to a small fraction of high-income households today, higher GDP growth does not substantially increase the number of children who earn more than their parents. Of course, this does not mean that GDP growth does not matter: changing the distribution of growth naturally has smaller effects on absolute mobility when there is very little growth to be distributed. The key point is that increasing absolute mobility substantially would require more broad-based economic growth. We conclude that absolute mobility has declined sharply in America over the past half-century primarily because of the growth in inequality. If one wants to revive the “American Dream” of high rates of absolute mobility, one must have an interest in growth that is shared more broadly across the income distribution.

This is a historical measure for Strategic Direction 2023. For more data on Austin demographics please visit austintexas.gov/demographics. The purpose of this dataset is to track the distribution of aggregate city income between the 5 quintile of population segments. The dataset comes from the 2019 U.S. Census Bureau, American Communities Survey (5yr) Table B19082. The row levels contain total percentage of income shares by the middle 3 quintiles (20-80%) of population. This data can be used to provide insights into growth/decline of middle class. Distribution of household income (Note: This indicator can provide insights into growth/decline of middle class) View more details and insights related to this measure on the story page: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Distribution-of-Household-Income/i3a3-vjnc/

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents a breakdown of households across various income brackets in Fresno, CA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau classifies households into different categories, including total households, family households, and non-family households. Our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data for Fresno, CA reveals how household income distribution varies among these categories. The dataset highlights the variation in number of households with income, offering valuable insights into the distribution of Fresno households based on income levels.

Key observations

• For Family Households: In Fresno, the majority of family households, representing 13.51%, earn $75,000 to $99,999, showcasing a substantial share of the community families falling within this income bracket. Conversely, the minority of family households, comprising 2.47%, have incomes falling $150,000 to $199,999, representing a smaller but still significant segment of the community.
• For Non-Family Households: In Fresno, the majority of non-family households, accounting for 13.13%, have income Less than $10,000, indicating that a substantial portion of non-family households falls within this income bracket. On the other hand, the minority of non-family households, comprising 2.82%, earn $150,000 to $199,999, representing a smaller, yet notable, portion of non-family households in the community.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Less than $10,000
• $10,000 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $59,999
• $60,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $125,000 to $149,999
• $150,000 to $199,999
• $200,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: The income level represents the income brackets ranging from Less than $10,000 to $200,000 or more in Fresno, CA (As mentioned above).
• All Households: Count of households for the specified income level
• % All Households: Percentage of households at the specified income level relative to the total households in Fresno, CA
• Family Households: Count of family households for the specified income level
• % Family Households: Percentage of family households at the specified income level relative to the total family households in Fresno, CA
• Non-Family Households: Count of non-family households for the specified income level
• % Non-Family Households: Percentage of non-family households at the specified income level relative to the total non-family households in Fresno, CA

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Fresno median household income. You can refer the same here

About this dataset

Context

The dataset presents a breakdown of households across various income brackets in Carroll County, VA, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau classifies households into different categories, including total households, family households, and non-family households. Our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey data for Carroll County, VA reveals how household income distribution varies among these categories. The dataset highlights the variation in number of households with income, offering valuable insights into the distribution of Carroll County households based on income levels.

Key observations

• For Family Households: In Carroll County, the majority of family households, representing 15.22%, earn $75,000 to $99,999, showcasing a substantial share of the community families falling within this income bracket. Conversely, the minority of family households, comprising 1.59%, have incomes falling $150,000 to $199,999, representing a smaller but still significant segment of the community.
• For Non-Family Households: In Carroll County, the majority of non-family households, accounting for 14.72%, have income $10,000 to $14,999, indicating that a substantial portion of non-family households falls within this income bracket. On the other hand, the minority of non-family households, comprising 0.25%, earn $150,000 to $199,999, representing a smaller, yet notable, portion of non-family households in the community.

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2019-2023 5-Year Estimates.

Income Levels:

• Less than $10,000
• $10,000 to $14,999
• $15,000 to $19,999
• $20,000 to $24,999
• $25,000 to $29,999
• $30,000 to $34,999
• $35,000 to $39,999
• $40,000 to $44,999
• $45,000 to $49,999
• $50,000 to $59,999
• $60,000 to $74,999
• $75,000 to $99,999
• $125,000 to $149,999
• $150,000 to $199,999
• $200,000 or more

Variables / Data Columns

• Income Level: The income level represents the income brackets ranging from Less than $10,000 to $200,000 or more in Carroll County, VA (As mentioned above).
• All Households: Count of households for the specified income level
• % All Households: Percentage of households at the specified income level relative to the total households in Carroll County, VA
• Family Households: Count of family households for the specified income level
• % Family Households: Percentage of family households at the specified income level relative to the total family households in Carroll County, VA
• Non-Family Households: Count of non-family households for the specified income level
• % Non-Family Households: Percentage of non-family households at the specified income level relative to the total non-family households in Carroll County, VA

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Carroll County median household income. You can refer the same here

India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data was reported at 9.800 % in 2021. This records a decrease from the previous number of 10.000 % for 2020. India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data is updated yearly, averaging 6.200 % from Dec 1977 (Median) to 2021, with 14 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 10.300 % in 2019 and a record low of 5.100 % in 2004. India Proportion of People Living Below 50 Percent Of Median Income: % data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s India – Table IN.World Bank.WDI: Social: Poverty and Inequality. The percentage of people in the population who live in households whose per capita income or consumption is below half of the median income or consumption per capita. The median is measured at 2017 Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) using the Poverty and Inequality Platform (http://www.pip.worldbank.org). For some countries, medians are not reported due to grouped and/or confidential data. The reference year is the year in which the underlying household survey data was collected. In cases for which the data collection period bridged two calendar years, the first year in which data were collected is reported.;World Bank, Poverty and Inequality Platform. Data are based on primary household survey data obtained from government statistical agencies and World Bank country departments. Data for high-income economies are mostly from the Luxembourg Income Study database. For more information and methodology, please see http://pip.worldbank.org.;;The World Bank’s internationally comparable poverty monitoring database now draws on income or detailed consumption data from more than 2000 household surveys across 169 countries. See the Poverty and Inequality Platform (PIP) for details (www.pip.worldbank.org).

Graph and download economic data for Median Household Income in California (MEHOINUSCAA646N) from 1984 to 2023 about CA, households, median, income, and USA.

Disposable Personal Income in India increased to 296383300 INR Million in 2023 from 273364818.90 INR Million in 2022. This dataset provides - India Total Disposable Personal Income - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

Abstract

The Global Consumption Database (GCD) contains information on consumption patterns at the national level, by urban/rural area, and by income level (4 categories: lowest, low, middle, higher with thresholds based on a global income distribution), for 92 low and middle-income countries, as of 2010. The data were extracted from national household surveys. The consumption is presented by category of products and services of the International Comparison Program (ICP) 2005, which mostly corresponds to COICOP. For three countries, sub-national data are also available (Brazil, India, and South Africa). Data on population estimates are also included.

       The data file can be used for the production of the following tables (by urban/rural and income class/consumption segment):
       - Sample Size by Country, Area and Consumption Segment (Number of Households)
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the National Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the Area Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Age Group, Sex and Consumption Segment
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Category of Products/Services, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Percentage of Households who Reported Having Consumed the Product or Service by Country, Consumption Segment and Area (as of Survey Year)

Geographic coverage notes

For all countries, estimates are provided at the national level and at the urban/rural levels. For Brazil, India, and South Africa, data are also provided at the sub-national level (admin 1): - Brazil: ACR, Alagoas, Amapa, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Distrito Federal, Espirito Santo, Goias, Maranhao, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Para, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaji, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondonia, Roraima, Santa Catarina, Sao Paolo, Sergipe, Tocatins - India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Arinachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madya Pradesh, Maharastra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal - South Africa: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu Natal, Limpopo, Mpulamanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape

Kind of data

Data derived from survey microdata

For detailed information, visit the Tucson Equity Priority Index StoryMap.Download the layer's data dictionaryNote: This layer is symbolized to display the percentile distribution of the Limited Resources Sub-Index. However, it includes all data for each indicator and sub-index within the citywide census tracts TEPI.What is the Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI)?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) is a tool that describes the distribution of socially vulnerable demographics. It categorizes the dataset into 5 classes that represent the differing prioritization needs based on the presence of social vulnerability: Low (0-20), Low-Moderate (20-40), Moderate (40-60), Moderate-High (60-80) High (80-100). Each class represents 20% of the dataset’s features in order of their values. The features within the Low (0-20) classification represent the areas that, when compared to all other locations in the study area, have the lowest need for prioritization, as they tend to have less socially vulnerable demographics. The features that fall into the High (80-100) classification represent the 20% of locations in the dataset that have the greatest need for prioritization, as they tend to have the highest proportions of socially vulnerable demographics. How is social vulnerability measured?The Tucson Equity Priority Index (TEPI) examines the proportion of vulnerability per feature using 11 demographic indicators:Income Below Poverty: Households with income at or below the federal poverty level (FPL), which in 2023 was $14,500 for an individual and $30,000 for a family of fourUnemployment: Measured as the percentage of unemployed persons in the civilian labor forceHousing Cost Burdened: Homeowners who spend more than 30% of their income on housing expenses, including mortgage, maintenance, and taxesRenter Cost Burdened: Renters who spend more than 30% of their income on rentNo Health Insurance: Those without private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other plan or programNo Vehicle Access: Households without automobile, van, or truck accessHigh School Education or Less: Those highest level of educational attainment is a High School diploma, equivalency, or lessLimited English Ability: Those whose ability to speak English is "Less Than Well."People of Color: Those who identify as anything other than Non-Hispanic White Disability: Households with one or more physical or cognitive disabilities Age: Groups that tend to have higher levels of vulnerability, including children (those below 18), and seniors (those 65 and older)An overall percentile value is calculated for each feature based on the total proportion of the above indicators in each area. How are the variables combined?These indicators are divided into two main categories that we call Thematic Indices: Economic and Personal Characteristics. The two thematic indices are further divided into five sub-indices called Tier-2 Sub-Indices. Each Tier-2 Sub-Index contains 2-3 indicators. Indicators are the datasets used to measure vulnerability within each sub-index. The variables for each feature are re-scaled using the percentile normalization method, which converts them to the same scale using values between 0 to 100. The variables are then combined first into each of the five Tier-2 Sub-Indices, then the Thematic Indices, then the overall TEPI using the mean aggregation method and equal weighting. The resulting dataset is then divided into the five classes, where:High Vulnerability (80-100%): Representing the top classification, this category includes the highest 20% of regions that are the most socially vulnerable. These areas require the most focused attention. Moderate-High Vulnerability (60-80%): This upper-middle classification includes areas with higher levels of vulnerability compared to the median. While not the highest, these areas are more vulnerable than a majority of the dataset and should be considered for targeted interventions. Moderate Vulnerability (40-60%): Representing the middle or median quintile, this category includes areas of average vulnerability. These areas may show a balanced mix of high and low vulnerability. Detailed examination of specific indicators is recommended to understand the nuanced needs of these areas. Low-Moderate Vulnerability (20-40%): Falling into the lower-middle classification, this range includes areas that are less vulnerable than most but may still exhibit certain vulnerable characteristics. These areas typically have a mix of lower and higher indicators, with the lower values predominating. Low Vulnerability (0-20%): This category represents the bottom classification, encompassing the lowest 20% of data points. Areas in this range are the least vulnerable, making them the most resilient compared to all other features in the dataset.

This table presents income shares, thresholds, tax shares, and total counts of individual Canadian tax filers, with a focus on high income individuals (95% income threshold, 99% threshold, etc.). Income thresholds are based on national threshold values, regardless of selected geography; for example, the number of Nova Scotians in the top 1% will be calculated as the number of taxfiling Nova Scotians whose total income exceeded the 99% national income threshold. Different definitions of income are available in the table namely market, total, and after-tax income, both with and without capital gains.

Bangladesh HIES: Household Income per Month data was reported at 32,422.000 BDT in 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 15,988.000 BDT for 2016. Bangladesh HIES: Household Income per Month data is updated yearly, averaging 9,341.000 BDT from Dec 1996 (Median) to 2022, with 6 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 32,422.000 BDT in 2022 and a record low of 4,366.000 BDT in 1996. Bangladesh HIES: Household Income per Month data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Bangladesh – Table BD.H010: Household Income and Expenditure Survey: Average Monthly Income per Household: by Income Group.

We know that students at elite universities tend to be from high-income families, and that graduates are more likely to end up in high-status or high-income jobs. But very little public data has been available on university admissions practices. This dataset, collected by Opportunity Insights, gives extensive detail on college application and admission rates for 139 colleges and universities across the United States, including data on the incomes of students. How do admissions practices vary by institution, and are wealthy students overrepresented?

Motivation

Education equality is one of the most contested topics in society today. It can be defined and explored in many ways, from accessible education to disabled/low-income/rural students to the cross-generational influence of doctorate degrees and tenure track positions. One aspect of equality is the institutions students attend. Consider the “Ivy Plus” universities, which are all eight Ivy League schools plus MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Chicago. Although less than half of one percent of Americans attend Ivy-Plus colleges, they account for more than 10% of Fortune 500 CEOs, a quarter of U.S. Senators, half of all Rhodes scholars, and three-fourths of Supreme Court justices appointed in the last half-century.

A 2023 study (Chetty et al, 2023) tried to understand how these elite institutions affect educational equality:

Do highly selective private colleges amplify the persistence of privilege across generations by taking students from high-income families and helping them obtain high-status, high-paying leadership positions? Conversely, to what extent could such colleges diversify the socioeconomic backgrounds of society’s leaders by changing their admissions policies?

To answer these questions, they assembled a dataset documenting the admission and attendance rate for 13 different income bins for 139 selective universities around the country. They were able to access and link not only student SAT/ACT scores and high school grades, but also parents’ income through their tax records, students’ post-college graduate school enrollment or employment (including earnings, employers, and occupations), and also for some selected colleges, their internal admission ratings for each student. This dataset covers students in the entering classes of 2010–2015, or roughly 2.4 million domestic students.

They found that children from families in the top 1% (by income) are more than twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores, and two-thirds of this gap can be attributed to higher admission rates with similar scores, with the remaining third due to the differences in rates of application and matriculation (enrollment conditional on admission). This is not a shocking conclusion, but we can further explore elite college admissions by socioeconomic status to understand the differences between elite private colleges and public flagships admission practices, and to reflect on the privilege we have here and to envision what a fairer higher education system could look like.

Data

The data has been aggregated by university and by parental income level, grouped into 13 income brackets. The income brackets are grouped by percentile relative to the US national income distribution, so for instance the 75.0 bin represents parents whose incomes are between the 70th and 80th percentile. The top two bins overlap: the 99.4 bin represents parents between the 99 and 99.9th percentiles, while the 99.5 bin represents parents in the top 1%.

Each row represents students’ admission and matriculation outcomes from one income bracket at a given university. There are 139 colleges covered in this dataset.

The variables include an array of different college-level-income-binned estimates for things including attendance rate (both raw and reweighted by SAT/ACT scores), application rate, and relative attendance rate conditional on application, also with respect to specific test score bands for each college and in/out-of state. Colleges are categorized into six tiers: Ivy Plus, other elite schools (public and private), highly selective public/private, and selective public/private, with selectivity generally in descending order. It also notes whether a college is public and/or flagship, where “flagship” means public flagship universities. Furthermore, they also report the relative application rate for each income bin within specific test bands, which are 50-point bands that had the most attendees in each school tier/category.

Several values are reported in “test-score-reweighted” form. These values control for SAT score: they are calculated separately for each SAT score value, then averaged with weights based on the distribution of SAT scores at the institution.

Note that since private schools typically don’t differentiate between in-...

Do electorates hold governments accountable for the distribution of economic welfare? Building on the finding of “class-biased economic voting” in the United States, we examine how OECD electorates respond to alternative distributions of income gains and losses. Drawing on individual-level electoral data and aggregate election results across 15 advanced democracies, we examine whether lower- and middle-income voters defend their distributive interests by punishing governments for concentrating income gains among the rich. We find no indication that non-rich voters punish rising inequality, and substantial evidence that electorates positively reward the concentration of aggregate income growth at the top. Our results suggest that governments commonly face political incentives systematically skewed in favor of inegalitarian economic outcomes. At the same time, we find that the electorate’s tolerance of rising inequality has its limits: class biases in economic voting diminish as the income shares of the rich grow in magnitude.

The Corona crisis (COVID-19) affects a large proportion of companies and freelancers in Germany. Against this background, the study examines the personal situation and working conditions of employees in Germany in times of corona. The analysis mainly refers to the situation in May 2020 and can only make limited statements about the further situation of the employed persons in the course of the corona pandemic. Personal situation: change in working times during the corona crisis; current work situation (local focus of one´s own work); preference for home office; preference for future home office; financial losses due to the corona crisis; concerns about the financial and economic consequences of the corona crisis in Germany; concerns about the corona crisis in personal areas (job security, current working conditions, financial situation, career opportunities, family situation, health, psychological well-being, housing situation); support from the employer in the corona crisis. 2. Economy and welfare state: political interest; assessment of the economic situation in Germany; preferred form of government (strong vs. liberal state); agreement on various statements on the weighing of values in the Corona crisis (the restrictions on public life to protect the population from Corona are not in proportion to the economic crisis caused by it, the money now being made available for economic aid will later be lacking in other important areas such as education, infrastructure or climate protection, for politicians, the health of the population is the top priority, the interests of the economy influence them less strongly with regard to the corona crisis, the worst part of the crisis is now behind us, as a result of the economic effects of the corona crisis the contrast between rich and poor in Germany will become even more pronounced, the corona crisis affects the low earners more than the middle class, the corona crisis significantly advances the digitalisation of the world of work); perception of state action in the corona crisis on the basis of pairs of opposites (e.g. bureaucratic - unbureaucratic, passive - active, etc.); responsibility of the state to provide financial support to companies in the corona crisis; responsibility of the state to provide financial support to private individuals in the corona crisis over and above basic provision; recipients of state financial aid in the corona crisis (companies, directly to needy private individuals, companies and private individuals alike); assessment of the bureaucracy involved in state financial aid (speed vs. exact examination). 3. Measures: awareness of current measures to support business and individuals in the corona crisis; assessment of current measures to support business and individuals in the corona crisis; reliance on assistance in the corona crisis; nature of assistance used in the corona crisis; barriers to use of assistance in the corona crisis; assessment of the effectiveness of the state measures to cope with the corona crisis; appropriate additional measures to mitigate the economic consequences; concerns about the consequences of the planned state measures (increasing tax burden, rising social contributions, rising inflation, stagnating pension levels, rising retirement age, reduction of other state transfers, safeguarding savings). 4. Information: active search for information on financial assistance offers by the Federal Government in the corona crisis; self-assessment of the level of information on measures to support business and private individuals in the corona crisis; request for detailed information on state assistance measures in the corona crisis (e.g. application process, sources of funding, conditions for receiving assistance, etc.) sources of information used about state aid measures in the Corona crisis; contact with institutions offering economic and financial aid during the Corona crisis (development bank/ municipal development agency, employment agency, tax office, none of them); experience with institutions offering economic and financial aid during the Corona crisis (appropriate treatment). 5. Outlook: assessment of the future economic situation in Germany; assessment of Germany´s future as a strong business location; assessment of its own future economic situation; assessment of the duration of the economic impairment caused by the Corona crisis. Demography: age; sex; education; employment; self-localization social class; net household income; current household income; household income before the crisis; occupational activity; belonging to systemically important occupations; number of persons in the household; number of children under 18 in the household; size of town; party sympathy; migration background. Additionally coded: current number; federal state; education (low, medium, high); weighting factor.

Families of tax filers; Single-earner and dual-earner census families by number of children (final T1 Family File; T1FF).